Karnataka Court June 1984 Judgments
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR244; 1985(1)KarLJ31; (1985)IILLJ63Kant
ORDER1. This writ petition is by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore, praying for quashing the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) allowing the application of the third respondent for payment of gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act ('the Act for short) which order has been confirmed by the appellate authority functioning under the Act. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The third respondent was working as an Upper Division Clerk on the establishment of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore. After putting in about 9 years and 9 months of service commencing from 20th June, 1972, he resigned from service with effect from 3rd March, 1982. Thereafter on 14th June, 1982, he made an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) under the provisions of the Act praying for the issue of a direction to the petitioner to pay gratuity calculated at the rates prescribed under the Act. That application was allowed...
Tag this Judgment!Fathimabi Vs. Mehboob
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR393
Kudoor, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 10326 of 1981 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore is the appellant and the defendant is the respondent in this appeal.2. The plaintiff instituted the above suit for a declaration that there was creation of fresh tenancy in respect of the suit schedule premises between the parties from 2-7-1980 in view of the fact that there was a change in the rate of payment of rent and a fresh advance and as such the order of eviction passed in H.R.C. No.110/77 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, is inexecutable and for restraining the defendant by an order of permanent injunction from evicting the plaintiff from schedule premises or from executing the order of eviction dated 1-7-1980 passed in H.R.C. No. l 10/77.3. The suit brought by the plaintiff was based on the following averments.The defendant is the owner of the suit schedule premises. The plaintiff was a tenant in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Hemraj Achalchand
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR951; 1985(1)KarLJ373
Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal is by the State of Karnataka and is directed against the decree dated 17-1-1,74 decreeing Respondent-plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 30,110-15, together with interest and casts, said to be the price of goods supplied to the Appellant-defendant.The suit stood posted to 17-1-1974 for the appearance of the defendant and settlement of issues. Appellant-defendant was served with the summonses in the suit on 3-1-1974. On 17-1-1974 defendant failed to appear and the suit was decreed. The note in the order sheet reads :'Defendant absent. Placed exparte. Suit decreed as prayed for.'2. This appeal requires to be allowed on a short-point. Order VIII Rule 5(1) C. P. C. provides that any allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication or atleast stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted. This provision deals with a case where a written statement is filed but does not 'Trave...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmamma and ors. Vs. C. Das and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1984
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas191(Kar)
Sabhahit, J. 1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment and awards made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in M.V.C. Nos. 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 144 and 175 of 1979, dated June 19, 1982. 2. The brief facts are these : A tourist bus No. MED 2844 and a goods vehicle bearing No. MYD 2462 were involved in an accident that occurred on April 11, 1979, at about 9-30 p.m. on Bangalore Mysore road near Kanmanike village. The bus was coming from Mysore side whereas the truck was going towards Mysore side. They collided on the road as the result of which 7 persons travelling in the truck died. The legal heirs of the deceased persons instituted seven claim petitions before the Claims Tribunal as M.V.C. Nos. 91 to 96 and 175 of 1979 claiming compensation from respondents. 3. M.V.C. No. 144 of 1979 is by the truck owner. He claimed compensation for damages to the truck. The respondents are the owner, driver and insurer of the bus and also of the truck....
Tag this Judgment!i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Labour Court, Bangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1984
Reported in: [1985(51)FLR15]; (1985)ILLJ243Kant
1. In this batch of 41 writ petitions presented by the I.T.C. Limited, Bangalore, the following important question of law arises for consideration : 'Where the Labour Court, before whom an application is filed by a management of an industry under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) seeking its approval to the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service against its workman, has the power to make an interim order against the applicant to pay full or part of the wages to the dismissed workman pending final orders on the application ?' 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are these : The workman-respondent, in each of the petitions, was in the employment of the petitioner. Separate disciplinary proceedings were instituted against each of them on certain serious charges of misconduct set out in the article of charges. A domestic inquiry was held against each of them on various dates. The Inquiry Officer recorded a finding to the effect that each of them...
Tag this Judgment!i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR184; 1984(2)KarLJ252; (1985)ILLJ227Kant
ORDER1. In these two writ petitions presented by the I.T.C. Ltd., Bangalore, the following important question of law arises for consideration : Whether during the pendency of proceedings under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) pursuant to the application preferred by the management of an industry seeking the approval of the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, to the dismissal of a workman, the Government has the power under sub-s. (1) of S. 10 of the Act refer the same dispute for industrial adjudication 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : (i) In W.P. No. 31400/81 : The petitioner instituted disciplinary proceedings against number of workmen on certain serious charges of misconduct. Domestic Inquiry was held against each of the workman. The Inquiry Officer found them guilty of the charge levelled against them. The petitioner accepted the findings and imposed penalty of dismissal, on various dates. The number of workmen so di...
Tag this Judgment!i.T.C. Limited Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR208
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this batch of 41 Writ Petitions presented by the I.T.C. Limited, Bangalore, the following important question of law arises for consideration :1.Whether the Labour Court, before whom an application is filed by a management of an industry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) seeking its approval to the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service against its workman, has the power to make an interim order against the applicant to pay full or part of the wages to the dismissed workman pending final orders on the application ?2. The facts of the case, briefly, stated are these :(i) The workman-respondent in each of the Petitions, was in the employment of the petitioner. Separate disciplinary proceedings were instituted against each of them on certain serious charges of misconduct set out in the Article of Charges. A domestic inquiry was held against each of them on various dates. The Inquiry Officer recorded a finding to the...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. B. Parvathamma and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1984
Reported in: [1984]56CompCas441(Kar)
Sabhahit, J.1. These four appeals arise out of the common judgment and awards dated March 23, 1981, made by the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bellary, in MVC Nos. 30 of 1979 and 21 of 1980, awarding compensation to the claimants at Rs. 46,000 and Rs. 52,000 respectively. 2. The relevant facts leading up to these appeals are : 3. On April 19, 1979, at about 11.15 p.m., a petrol tanker bearing No. MYY 6037 was proceeding from Bellary towards Shirguppa. It was driven by the third respondent and when it was near Halekote, the petrol tanker hit a tractor with trailer bearing No. MYF 6403, standing on the left side of the road and when it swerved towards right dashed against a tree by the side of the road and stopped. As a result of this accident, one Sunkayya, who was sitting in the cabin of the tanker was thrown out and he sustained injuries. So also Basayya Setty who was travelling in the said petrol tanker sustained fatal injuries in the said accident and died. The dependents of Basayya Set...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka, Bangalore Vs. Vidyavathi Kapur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Kar)174; [1984]150ITR319(KAR); [1984]150ITR319(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The Department seeks a reference in respect of the following two questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in remitting the matter back to the Wealth-tax Officer for a fresh disposal after applying rule 1BB even though no retrospective effect is given to this rule 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in entertaining the additional ground even though it required fresh fact for decision which had to be gathered on further enquiries ?' 2. The dispute in respect of both the questions relates to the applicability of rule 1BB. The Tribunal has held that it is a procedural rule and, therefore, it may be given effect to even in respect of pending matters. There is no dispute and indeed it cannot be disputed that rule 1BB is procedural in nature. That being the portion, we fail to see any question of law arising out of the order the Tribunal, since it is always not dispute...
Tag this Judgment!Devaki Vs. Kalyani
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant70; ILR1984KAR349; 1984(2)KarLJ162
Nesargi, J.1. This petition has come up for final hearing before this Bench on an order of reference dated 10-6-1983.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4-8-1982 passed by the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada. Mangalore on I. A. No. III in C.R.P. 109 of 1980. I. A. No. III had been filed by the petitioner under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Limitation Act), requesting the Court to condone the delay in filing the revision petition before the District Judge.3. On facts it is seen that the revision petition had been filed on 17-9-1980 beyond 90 days from the date of the impugned order dated 26-8-1978 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Mangalore in H.R.C. No. 267 of 1975 allowing the petition for eviction of the present petitioner. I.A. No. III was opposed by the landlady respondent on merits. The District Judge held an enquiry on I.A. No. III by recording evidence also. Ultimately he concluded that in view of the decision of this Court in Karm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »